Bombay High Court
The Ex. Engineer, (Agency) ... vs Laxman Gangaram Shelke on 15 January, 2021
Bench: V.L. Achliya
1 [917-C.A. 863...2021 in F.A.St. 23907.2020]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
917 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 863 OF 2021
IN
FAST/23907/2020
THE EX. ENGINEER, (AGENCY) K.K.V.M. DIV. AT
OMERGA AND ORS
VERSUS
BALASAHEB SHANKAR MAGAR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 865 OF 2021
IN
FAST/24676/2020
THE EX. ENGINEER, (AGENCY) K.K.V.M. DIV. AT
OMERGA AND ORS
VERSUS
DEVIDAS BHAURAO MAGAR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 867 OF 2021
IN
FAST/24687/2020
THE EX. ENGINEER, (AGENCY) K.K.V.M. DIV. AT
OMERGA AND ORS
VERSUS
LAXMAN GANGARAM SHELKE
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 869 OF 2021
IN
FAST/24680/2020
THE EX. ENGINEER, (AGENCY) K.K.V.M. DIV. AT
OMERGA AND ORS
VERSUS
BABURAO BHAURAO MAGAR
......
Mr. R.A.Tambe, Advocate for Applicants.
Ms. Laxmi Thakur, Advocate for respondents.
......
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 22:42:12 :::
2 [917-C.A. 863...2021 in F.A.St. 23907.2020]
......
CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA, J.
DATE : 15/01/2021
......
ORAL ORDER :
1. The applicants have moved these applications
seeking stay to the execution of Award.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicants and the
counsel representing the claimants.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for
applicants that the Award passed by the Reference
Court is against the settled principles of law. It is
contended that the land has been acquired for the
storage tank. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has
assessed the compensation @ Rs. 348/- per R. which
has been enhanced to Rs. 5,466/- per R. by the
Reference Court. For the purpose of enhancement,
the Reference Court has referred and relied upon the
sale instance of 9 R. of land which can not be treated
as comparable sale instance. It is submitted that the
Award passed is contrary to law. The enhancement is
more than 15 times the compensation assessed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer. So also, the
interest has been awarded from the date of
notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act, which is
contrary to the Full Bench Decision of this Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra V/s Kailash Shiva
Rangari 2016 (3) AIR Bom.R. - 742. In this back-
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 22:42:12 :::
3 [917-C.A. 863...2021 in F.A.St. 23907.2020]
ground, learned counsel submits that in case if stay is
not granted, then the purpose of filing of Appeal
would be frustrated.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent support the Judgment of the Reference
Court. It is submitted that in the connected matters,
this Court stayed the execution of Award on deposit of
compensation in terms of Award passed by the
Reference Court.
5. On due consideration of submissions advanced
in the light of the fact that enhancement is more than
15 times of the compensation assessed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer and based upon sale instance
of small piece of land, which itself hit by the
provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1947 and make such transactions bad in law, I am of
the view there is arguable case to be considered in
Appeal. So also the aspect of awarding of interest
from the date of notification also needs to be
examined in Appeal. I am, therefore, inclined to pass
the following order.
ORDER
The applications are allowed in terms of prayer
clause 'B' in respective Appeals subject to deposit of
amount to the extent of 50% of Award passed by the
4 [917-C.A. 863...2021 in F.A.St. 23907.2020]
Reference Court. Failure to deposit the amount within
stipulated period, the stay granted to the execution of
Award stands vacated unless time is extended to
deposit the amount before due date.
[V.L.ACHLIYA]
JUDGE
KNP`
